DNA tests for purpose of deciding paternity of a child can be conducted even by using necessary force
The principles laid down, which are binding, make it very clear that the main purport of the orders of the Courts are the implementation of those orders effectively however grave their effect may be. It is needless to say that justice is done to the parties to obtain necessary reliefs before the Courts. So far as conducting necessary medical tests including DNA test for the purpose of deciding paternity of a child or for any other similar purpose is concerned even necessary force can be used for deriving necessary result to make use of those results for proper adjudication of the matters. The concept of testimonial compulsion is applicable only to criminal cases purely by virtue of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India which reads ;No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.We are therefore of the opinion that adverse inference from non-compliance cannot be a substitute to the enforceability of a direction for DNA testing. The valuable right of the appellant under the said direction, to prove his paternity through such DNA testing cannot be taken away by asking the appellant to be satisfied with the comparatively weak 'adverse inference'.
The primacy duty of a Court is to see that truth is arrived at. The Hindu Marriage Act or any other law governing the field does not contain any express provision empowering the Court to issue a direction upon a party to a matrimonial proceedings to compel him to submit himself/herself to a medical examination. However, that does not preclude a Court from invoking its inherent jurisdiction to pass such order so as to secure the ends of justice. Medical examination by the experts in the field may not only be found to be leading to the truth of the matter but may also lead to removal of misunderstanding between the parties and perhaps may bring the parties to terms. It is laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharda's case that right to privacy in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution is not an absolute right. If there were a conflict between the fundamental rights of two parties, that right which advances public morality would prevail.
The primacy duty of a Court is to see that truth is arrived at. The Hindu Marriage Act or any other law governing the field does not contain any express provision empowering the Court to issue a direction upon a party to a matrimonial proceedings to compel him to submit himself/herself to a medical examination. However, that does not preclude a Court from invoking its inherent jurisdiction to pass such order so as to secure the ends of justice. Medical examination by the experts in the field may not only be found to be leading to the truth of the matter but may also lead to removal of misunderstanding between the parties and perhaps may bring the parties to terms. It is laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharda's case that right to privacy in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution is not an absolute right. If there were a conflict between the fundamental rights of two parties, that right which advances public morality would prevail.
Andhra High Court
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, ... vs Counsel For The Petitioners: ...
CRIMINAL PETITION No.777 of 2010
Date of decision;
30.11.2012
Citation ;2013CR L J1351 orissa high court
https://www.lawweb.in/2013/05/dna-tests-for-purpose-of-deciding.html
